If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The F-20 is actually a less capable aircraft to the F-16. It didn't meet USAF requirements and wouldn't have been accepted - just like the aircraft it was developed from, the F-5. Unlike the F-16, the F-20 had no potential for development and growth.

The F-20 is actually a less capable aircraft to the F-16. It didn't meet USAF requirements and wouldn't have been accepted - just like the aircraft it was developed from, the F-5. Unlike the F-16, the F-20 had no potential for development and growth.

i agree. US made a right choice with F-16.
however question is.. what was the radome size of the f-20 compared to f-16 or gripen? it seems that its nose limited the size of the radar

Oh yes, the F-5G Tigershark had the STOL capability, the range, payload and the directional data link that the Gripen had, did it? And the AN/APG-67 was a marvelous thing by comparison with the more capable swedish set that was on the... Viggen´s nose (nevermind the Gripen)! And it had the same data link capability that was present in the Viggen had it?
It would quite a fun thing to see a Tigershark trying to emulate what the Swedes did with their aircrafts in dispersed sites and roads, how do you say "busted Landing gear" and "not enough wing"?